If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I'm thinking of starting a new thread for a sign-in sheet. The first post would be a list of all the textures in T2 by family and as people posted that they were working on a canonical replacement, I would update that first post to show what was being worked on and by whom. Then when people posted the results, based on the response to it, I would mark that it was "approved". They could then post a link to the real thing and I would assemble them all into family packs and post the each family as completed. Does that sound reasonable?

But for this to work, there needs to be standards. Say all files must be PNG and be 512x512 for the square textures and 256x512 for the rectangular ones? Do we really need higher resolution?

Say all files must be PNG and be 512x512 for the square textures and 256x512 for the rectangular ones? Do we really need higher resolution?

What do you think?

I think it's important to strive for a consistent resolution across surfaces. If the blue stone texture, which is currently 128x128, is remade at 512x512, the 4 blocks
(that EmperorSteele posted) should only be 256x256. An alternative would be to make it 512x512 but with 16 blocks instead of 4. The problem then is that it might not be a drop-in replacement because specific features, such as a slight misalignment, will not repeat as frequently.

One of the other things that bugs me about making drop-in replacements is the issue of repetition. If an original texture was a small picture of some bricks with a crack, a high-res replacement could make the crack's repetition stand out like a sore thumb. I think it's better to focus on making new textures. They can have the same style as stock textures but without the need for the creator to spend hours making sure all the gaps are perfect.

I tried to do something like this before, in the EP thread, but sadly not that much came of it.

I'm currently in the 1024x1024 / 1024x512 camp, but that may be a little bit insane. For the new EP (which may include terrain textures if I can get people to make them), I think I'll probably go with 512x512 in the end. Still, there's no harm in 1024x1024, since it can always be scaled down.

There's such a lot of textures, and the 8 images per post limit (IIRC), so it might be awkward to do something like this in a TTLG post.
I was idly thinking of setting up a forum on my own server to handle this, but making people register there would be a bit much much work for them.

I think it's important to strive for a consistent resolution across surfaces. If the blue stone texture, which is currently 128x128, is remade at 512x512, the 4 blocks
(that EmperorSteele posted) should only be 256x256. An alternative would be to make it 512x512 but with 16 blocks instead of 4. The problem then is that it might not be a drop-in replacement because specific features, such as a slight misalignment, will not repeat as frequently.

I think you are right about consistency of resolution improvement. What about a standard of 4X? That is, 64 => 64X4 = 256, 128 => 128X4 = 512, 256 => 256X4 = 1024. That should be more than ample resolution. And as NV says, if you want less you can drop it down.

Originally Posted by R Soul

One of the other things that bugs me about making drop-in replacements is the issue of repetition. If an original texture was a small picture of some bricks with a crack, a high-res replacement could make the crack's repetition stand out like a sore thumb. I think it's better to focus on making new textures. They can have the same style as stock textures but without the need for the creator to spend hours making sure all the gaps are perfect.

I think there needs to be a balance in this. Clearly for intentional patterned textures, the patterns need to be preserved. (for example blustn, where the pattern of the mortaring needs to be preserved exactly) But I don't think that you need to be slavish about every wart and dimple. The colors of the original need to be preserved. But if you are dealing with a marbled texture I don't think the exact marbling is all that crucial. That said, I was thinking that by having a public posting of each texture as it is developed, a consensus on each could be arrived at without having to try and craft hard and fast rules.

Originally Posted by Nameless Voice

There's such a lot of textures, and the 8 images per post limit (IIRC), so it might be awkward to do something like this in a TTLG post.
I was idly thinking of setting up a forum on my own server to handle this, but making people register there would be a bit much much work for them.

If you want to do that, I'll back down. It is an awful amount of work, so I thought if it was split up amongst those interested and tracked for all to see, it might actually happen.

I find doing a 1024-sized texture is basically as easy as doing a 512 texture, so why not make the larger one and give yourself more options?

This.

Truthfully, there's no reason not to go 2048 if you feel like it. Or hell, 4098 if you're feeling particularly crazy and have a host of source material at that size. Downsizing from a larger resolution is clean, simple, and leaves you with a much more malleable original to play with later.

I'm thinking of starting a new thread for a sign-in sheet. The first post would be a list of all the textures in T2 by family and as people posted that they were working on a canonical replacement, I would update that first post to show what was being worked on and by whom. Then when people posted the results, based on the response to it, I would mark that it was "approved". They could then post a link to the real thing and I would assemble them all into family packs and post the each family as completed. Does that sound reasonable?

Originally Posted by Nameless Voice

I'd almost consider a thread a texture.

Last night, I thought of two ways this could be handled.

1) Two stickied threads - This was my first thought...One would be a "Submission, Review, and Approval" thread, the other would be a "Texture Library" thread...The SRA thread, would be like Larry stated, where authors would submit textures for comment/review/adjustment, and then collectively approved/disapproved for entry into the TL thread...The TL thread would have an organized index, providing links to the texture-library-only posts on that thread. So, what's nice is that you have the SRA thread for "process" and a nice, clean TL thread for superior presentation and organization.

2) The Creation of a Sub-Forum - Alternatively, and ideally, a sub-forum could be created...for example:

The NewDark Restoration Project (NDRP)

- Sticky: Explanation and Purpose of the NDRP

- Sticky: THIEF 1 - Texture Library

- Sticky: THIEF 1 - Master SRA Index Hub

- Sticky: THIEF 2 - Texture Library

- Sticky: THIEF 2 - Master SRA Index Hub

- Sticky: System Shock 2 - Texture Library

- Sticky: System Shock 2 - Master SRA Index Hub

--- Unique Texture SRA Thread

--- Unique Texture SRA Thread

--- Unique Texture SRA Thread

...

I would be willing to volunteer my time to help manage this noble effort, so that the talented texture artists may use their time more efficiently to create.

1) Two stickied threads - This was my first thought...One would be a "Submission, Review, and Approval" thread, the other would be a "Texture Library" thread...The SRA thread, would be like Larry stated, where authors would submit textures for comment/review/adjustment, and then collectively approved/disapproved for entry into the TL thread...The TL thread would have an organized index, providing links to the texture-library-only posts on that thread. So, what's nice is that you have the SRA thread for "process" and a nice, clean TL thread for superior presentation and organization.

2) The Creation of a Sub-Forum - Alternatively, and ideally, a sub-forum could be created...for example:

The NewDark Restoration Project (NDRP)

- Sticky: Explanation and Purpose of the NDRP

- Sticky: THIEF 1 - Texture Library

- Sticky: THIEF 1 - Master SRA Index Hub

- Sticky: THIEF 2 - Texture Library

- Sticky: THIEF 2 - Master SRA Index Hub

- Sticky: System Shock 2 - Texture Library

- Sticky: System Shock 2 - Master SRA Index Hub

--- Unique Texture SRA Thread

--- Unique Texture SRA Thread

--- Unique Texture SRA Thread

...

I would be willing to volunteer my time to help manage this noble effort, so that the talented texture artists may use their time more efficiently to create.

If you really want a "Restoration" project, don't forget fixed original missions! There are lots of poor texture alignments, Jorge, misplaced objects, bad physics, etc. to be cleaned up. That would be a huge undertaking in its own right. Fortunately the people doing the mission fixes would not likely be the same ones restoring and upgrading the textures.

When I've been reworking some images, I've always sort of wished there was a thread where I can upload an image and see what people thought the intent with it was. Because often it can be hard to make out different shapes or images in the low-res.

Also, there are 140 textures in the first mission of Thief Gold alone. So it's quite an undertaking just to get one mission completely done. At a very good speed of 1 texture every 2 days, that's almost a year for one person working from scratch. Although that does basically include the entire core family.

Originally Posted by LarryG

In terms of a library of hi res textures to base other things from, I agree, make it as high res as you can.
BUT ... In terms of a released FAM update package to be used as is, there are plenty of reasons to keep the sizes down and to keep the resolutions proportionately consistent with the originals.

I agree. But someone somewhere should have a backup of all the large originals.

NewDark Texture Enhancement Project would be a better name for it. More to the point, anyway.

NDTEP is a better acronym, too. Enn-Dee Tep vs. Enn-Durp.

Actually, the first name I thought of was "NewDark Texture Project (NDTP)"...but then I realized that it didn't convey the "restorative" or "strict translation" aspect that is fundamental to the purpose...and to be clear, what is meant by restoration, is "restored intention"...meaning, the original intention from LGS. The fully realized expression of their intention was unavailable to them at the time, due to technical limitations. For example, the Cracked Wall Texture...This was the original intention of LGS, so in effect, bringing-out the original artistry without the unwanted, forced compromises of the past, indeed restores the true artistic intention.

That being said, I am not married to the name...If we can agree to a better one, then I'm all for it.